opinions on macro lenses

[cgipson1]

I guess the price is a big thing swaying me right now. I just dont think im going to use it enough to justify spending $500+ on one. That's why the 60mm is so attractive at around $225.

I just bought a Macro lens the Nikon 60mm 2.8G.
Just like you I was looking for its older sibling the 2.8D as its a very good capable lens but the avarage price that I found was over 300$ so since it was very close to the G version in price I decided to get the G.
I bought it about a week and a half ago for 390$, its fantasticaly sharp both in Macro and regular use, its a great portrait lens for a crop sensor camera.
The relatively small focal length is indeed a bit of a draw back if you shoot bugs but other then that its a wonderful lens.
I was debating if to get it or an other longer lens but decided to get it and I am glad I did, for my needs it perfect, a longer focal length Macro lens will mean I can use it for Macro and MAcro alone while I wanted a lens I can use for various needs and it does that with flying colours.

Any length macro lens can be used for any purpose you want... so I don't understand that statement?

 

[goodguy]

I guess the price is a big thing swaying me right now. I just dont think im going to use it enough to justify spending $500+ on one. That's why the 60mm is so attractive at around $225.

I just bought a Macro lens the Nikon 60mm 2.8G.
Just like you I was looking for its older sibling the 2.8D as its a very good capable lens but the avarage price that I found was over 300$ so since it was very close to the G version in price I decided to get the G.
I bought it about a week and a half ago for 390$, its fantasticaly sharp both in Macro and regular use, its a great portrait lens for a crop sensor camera.
The relatively small focal length is indeed a bit of a draw back if you shoot bugs but other then that its a wonderful lens.
I was debating if to get it or an other longer lens but decided to get it and I am glad I did, for my needs it perfect, a longer focal length Macro lens will mean I can use it for Macro and MAcro alone while I wanted a lens I can use for various needs and it does that with flying colours.

Any length macro lens can be used for any purpose you want... so I don't understand that statement?

I will explain.........

On my D7100 the 60mm is acting as 90mm which is a great portrait length, for my taste it also acts like a good carry around lens, any wider and I wouldnt use it as a carry around and use it only for macro.
It really is a matter of personal taste and not about the optics capability to be used in different scenarios.

 

[cgipson1]

I just bought a Macro lens the Nikon 60mm 2.8G.
Just like you I was looking for its older sibling the 2.8D as its a very good capable lens but the avarage price that I found was over 300$ so since it was very close to the G version in price I decided to get the G.
I bought it about a week and a half ago for 390$, its fantasticaly sharp both in Macro and regular use, its a great portrait lens for a crop sensor camera.
The relatively small focal length is indeed a bit of a draw back if you shoot bugs but other then that its a wonderful lens.
I was debating if to get it or an other longer lens but decided to get it and I am glad I did, for my needs it perfect, a longer focal length Macro lens will mean I can use it for Macro and MAcro alone while I wanted a lens I can use for various needs and it does that with flying colours.

Any length macro lens can be used for any purpose you want... so I don't understand that statement?

I will explain.........

On my D7100 the 60mm is acting as 90mm which is a great portrait length, for my taste it also acts like a good carry around lens, any wider and I wouldnt use it as a carry around and use it only for macro.
It really is a matter of personal taste and not about the optics capability to be used in different scenarios.

The reason the 85mm/90mm length is so popular for portraiture is that it is a short Tele... and has a perspective flattening effect that is flattering to the subject.

Your 60mm is basically a normal length lens... and even with the 1.5 crop factor, the only thing that changes is the FOV... not the compression factor / distortion levels. So it is still a 60mm.... not a 90mm. It will have the same distortion / compression effects that any 60mm would have.

The Tamron 90mmm (that was suggested) would have had a much better perspective factor for portraiture, although the FOV on a crop would have been 135.

Does this make sense?

It is like using a 35.. on a crop sensor. FOV is is 54mm, but you still have the 35mm distortion that is inherent in the 35mm.... it does not act like a 54mm would.

This Image Shows How Camera Lenses Beautify or Uglify Your Pretty Face

Photography 101: Lens Length. » Patti Brown Photography

Capture Your Best ? Photography & Retouching » Blog Archive » Longer Lens = Flattering Portraits

Your 60 is fine for portraiture... really, but not because it has a 90mm FOV... which is my point.

 

[matthewo]

I agree i think a 90-100 would work well on FF if i wanted a dual purpose lens, but i have a 70-200 2.8 i would most likely use over it for most work.

I think a 150mm will probably be useful for the instances i can get super close beyond the min focusing distance of my 500mm while out in the field doing mostly longer range stuff.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Lemme tell ya, go with the 150 or 180. You'll be upset in six months if you don't. If you don't want to hone your ninja skills to a point, then get a longer lens. I have the 90 and 150 and I use them on a D7000. I still ended up buying the 1.4x TC for the 150. That extra length is, as some women I know would say, awesome.